[Talk-us] US highway classification

[Paul Johnson]

On 05/31/2011 06:26 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray <toby.murray-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills <nathan-jiAvZWzNa1NeoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor.
>>>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't.
>>>
>>> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust
>>> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced
>>> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the
>>> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that).
>>>
>>> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be
>>> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on
>>> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here.
>>
>> I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely
>> accepted convention.
> 
> That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores
> the realities of where traffic goes.
> 
> To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69>

59 and 19...which networks?  Those two routes have incomplete refs.

> If we stuck purely to the above
> convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best).  But
> traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks
> like.

I'd probably consider both 20 and 72 as trunks based on their design
looking at the NAIP footage.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110531/df4adb75/attachment.pgp>